Evaluation of changes in the clinical benefits of oncology drugs over time following reimbursement using the ASCO-VF and the ESMO-MCBS.

PURPOSE: This study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks. METHODS: We retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications. RESULTS: Of 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did. CONCLUSION: The value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.

Economic Burden of Recurrence in Completely Resected Stage IB-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Study Using Nationwide Claims Data of South Korea.

INTRODUCTION: Although many patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience recurrence despite complete resection, few studies have reported on the corresponding economic burden. This study aimed to understand the economic impact of recurrence by measuring healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with recurrent stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. METHODS: Using Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims data from South Korea, we included patients who underwent complete resection for stage IB-IIIA NSCLC during the index period (January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2018). Patients who experienced recurrence were matched with those who did not using 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching. The mean healthcare costs and resource utilization were analyzed from the date of complete resection to the last claims for cancer treatment. A generalized linear model (GLM) was used to estimate the impact of covariates on healthcare costs. A difference-in-difference (DID) analysis was conducted to analyze the healthcare costs between the two groups before and after recurrence. RESULTS: Patients with recurrence incurred higher healthcare costs, particularly in outpatient settings. The cost of targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors primarily contributed to cost differences, and medication costs increased over time after complete resection. Patients with recurrence were also hospitalized more frequently (9.3 vs. 5.0, p < 0.0001) for a longer period (74 days vs. 42 days, p < 0.0001) than those without recurrence. GLM analysis showed that the total cost was 2.31-fold higher in patients with recurrence (95% confidence interval: 2.19-2.44). The DID analysis showed significantly increased total costs in patients with recurrence (ß = 26,269, p < 0.0001), which was mostly attributed to medication costs (ß = 17,951, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Recurrence of completely resected NSCLC leads to a substantial increase in healthcare costs and resource utilization. The results of this study show the economic burden of recurrence, which may help future economic analyses and resource allocation.

Prospective assessment of risk of bacteremia following colorectal stent placement.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal stent insertion is an invasive endoscopic procedure. However, there are no reports regarding the incidence of bacteremia with colorectal stent. OBJECTIVE: This study was to evaluate the risk of bacteremia and infectious complications after stent insertion for colorectal obstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent colorectal stent insertion were enrolled consecutively. Blood cultures were obtained before colorectal stent insertion and at 30 min after the procedure. Patients were monitored for 48 h after colorectal stent insertion to detect the development of infectious complications. Procedural data collected included location of obstruction, degree of bowel preparation, obstructive symptoms, and the time required for the procedure. RESULTS: Of 64 patients undergoing colorectal stent, four (6.3%) had a positive post-stent blood culture. All patients, including those with positive cultures, remained asymptomatic during the 48 h after the procedure. Site of obstruction, degree of bowel preparation, age, and underlying disease were not different between the two groups. Development of bacteremia was associated with long procedure time (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal stent insertion does not induce significant bacteremia in patients with colorectal obstruction. These findings suggest that the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics may not be necessary in colorectal stent insertion.